Supreme Court to hear case of brain damaged woman

A local mother-of-three who is convinced that it is 1996 and her adult children are still babies is at the centre of a vital test case in which judges must define what ‘liberty’ really means.

The woman, being referred to as KW, suffered brain damage 18 years ago following an operation in her 30s. Now in her 50s, a top court has heard how the patient suffers from ‘powerful delusions’ and tends to ‘wander off’ looking for her ‘small children.’

She is under care 24-hours a day by a team of carers which is costing almost £1,500 a week – a bill which is being picked up by Rochdale Council and her local NHS Trust.

Now, in a case which is likely to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, judges will have to decide whether she is effectively being kept prisoner in her own home.

The London Court of Protection heard that the woman is barely able to walk and uses a wheeled walking frame with her carers tending to her every need day and night in an attempt to make her life “as normal as possible.”

It is understood that Rochdale Council brought the case to court themselves to ask a top judge to reassure them that the high level of supervision they provide did not amount to ‘deprivation of liberty.’

Lawyers have argued for the woman’s care to be kept under constant review by the courts to ensure that it does not violate her human right to liberty.

But in a landmark decision, Senior Family Judge, Mr Justice Mostyn told the council that he does not agree. He said that if the woman’s care had to be overseen by judges then “tens if not hundreds of thousands of similar cases would require the same treatment.”

He added: “Every pound spent on such reviews is a pound less for other vitally necessary projects.”

The judge also stated that the idea that the woman was being held prisoner was “arguably irrational.”

Local authorities have recently been put under pressure by a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year which broadly interoperated the concept ‘liberty.’ That pressure has since been passed on to the Court of Protection.

Mr Justice Mostyn concluded: “I am of the view that the matter should be recognised by the Supreme Court.”